Wednesday, October 31, 2007

It's time to abandon the mindlessly-repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.

In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as End of Faith author Sam Harris puts it, “the most potent source of human conflict, past and present.”

Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. “The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries.”

In his best-seller The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world’s recent conflicts—in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, in Sri Lanka—show the vitality of religion’s murderous impulse.

The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem Witch Trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event continues to haunt the liberal imagination.

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the Crusaders’ and Inquisitors’ misdeeds of more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be around 5,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.

These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are miniscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the twentieth century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

In case you have not yet heard, 'The Laramie Project' is a pro-homosexual play which is being performed by high school students in public schools across the country, including our own District 214. Deerfield High School is planning it as their spring production. As such, there are some things about the play that Christian parents should be aware of.

Here is a first hand account of the production and promotion of this play in one Massachussetts' High School.

“I always say, don’t f**k with a Wyoming queer, cause they will kick you in your f**king ass.” -- “Matt was a blunt little sh*t” --“sh*t outta luck” -- “a freakin’ nightmare” -- “I was just bullsh*ttin around with my sh*t” -- “I was in deep-ass sand” – “they better watch their f**kin ass” -- “pi**ed him off” -- “good to be with people who felt like sh*t” -- “why’d you f**k up like that” – “he tried to grab my d**k” …

These are direct quotes from “The Laramie Project” – the fall play at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, set to run the first two weekends in November. The play’s director says it has literary merit “worth six months of production time.” Certainly, it will teach students it’s OK to talk like this.

The school recommends the play for audiences “age 13 and above,” but it’s actually unsuitable for any audience. The play’s foul language is just one problem. It is also horribly violent, promotes homosexuality as normal, and undermines many parents’ values and authority. It manipulates the audience’s emotions through the language, violence, and blatant misrepresentations of Christians.

“The Laramie Project” exploits the savage 1998 murder of homosexual college student Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming for radical political ends. A jumbled compilation of interviews with Laramie residents, it is sorely lacking as drama — but effective as propaganda. The play essentially blames the murder on those holding traditional values. (A report from ABC News “20/20” in 2004 showed the killers were actually drug-using thugs intent on robbery. But the audience never learns this.)

All students at the high school are exposed to the message of the play, not just those who are in the production. Even those who choose not to attend are receiving incessant messages about its content and merit through the school’s promotions and student newspaper. The school even handed out the script and led discussions of the play last spring (and possibly earlier), without some parents having a clue their children were being roped in.

The script, and accompanying handouts given to ABRHS drama students, make the play’s agenda crystal clear: 1) normalize homosexuality in the minds of children and the community; 2) lead children to homosexual advocacy groups (i.e. recruitment); and 3) promote “hate crimes” legislation (and local vigilante activities) to stomp out so-called “hatred.”

We hear graphic details of the terrible murder over and over: Matthew begged for his life as he lay tied to the fence posts, while the enraged murderer continued to pistol-whip him mercilessly about the head. Tears streamed through the caked blood on Matthew’s cheeks. He lingered for days in the hospital, as his distraught parents awaited his certain death.

In one handout, students learn what a scary place Focus on the Family is (Dr. James Dobson’s Christian, pro-family organization): One of the playwrights tells how fearful she was before, during, and after her visit there. In the play itself, the ranting Fred Phelps is dishonestly set up to represent the (false) “Christian message” that “God hates fags.”

The teacher’s guide from HBO makes the play’s goal clear: “Students may even come to view their most basic values — values that have been a part of their families and communities for generations — in a new light.”

Don’t let the proponents of the bill fool you. Despite a “religious exemption clause” your liberties in the workplace are endangered.

·Suppose in the lunchroom or at the water cooler you engage in a conversation about sexual ethics. If a fellow employee extols homosexual bonds and you express your moral reservations about such bonds, you or the company could be liable for an anti-discrimination lawsuit for creating an intimidating atmosphere in the workplace that adversely affects the standing of a person who is vocal about his or her homosexual activity.

·Let’s say that, in response to “diversity” posters, you post on your cubicle the text of Rom 1:24-27. Or in response to a corporate directive that you participate supportively in a “Coming Out Day” you respectfully decline because you find homosexual practice to be morally offensive. Or in an attempt to get exempted from the email list of the company’s “GLBT” organization (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) you send an email requesting to be removed from the list because you think homosexual practice is immoral. In all these circumstances, you are far more likely to be disciplined or fired, and to have no legal redress, with an “ENDA” in place than without it.

·As a means of protecting the company against “discrimination” lawsuits, your employer may require you to attend indoctrination seminars that stress that homosexuality is as morally neutral as race or sex; and, moreover, to participate in “coming out” celebrations in the workplace that affirm “sexual diversity.” Your employer may further prohibit, under penalty of termination, any conversation, written communication, or act that calls homosexual practice into question.

·While homosexual and bisexual persons will have their jobs protected under this act, your job status and advancement will have no such protections if you manifest “discriminatory” words against homosexual behavior. Indeed, not only will your religious convictions not be protected in a secular workplace, but also they will be treated as “bigotry” akin to racism and sexism. Corporations don’t generally hire or promote bigots. It is not good for business.

·Monitoring of “discriminatory” beliefs toward homosexual and bisexual persons could even extend, at least in the case of white collar employees, outside the workplace. For example, if a school teacher has published in a newspaper a letter that advocates that society not provide legal incentives for homosexual practice, or offers counseling for those seeking to come out of the homosexual life, the courts could rule (as the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago) that the employer is entitled to take such discriminatory views into consideration in suspending or firing the employee.

Peter Robertson resigned from the board of GSA Network, California’s largest organizer of school clubs that support gay teens, when it was discovered that he is also a pornographer. It appears he recruited young subjects during his tenure.

Mike Ensley was 17 and living in the gay lifestyle when Robertson asked him to pose nude.

“He identified himself as a photographer and just introduced himself as a friend, basically, and told me what he did and expressed interest in taking photographs.”

When Ensley said he was underage, Robertson asked him to call when he turned 18. Ensley has come out of the gay lifestyle and now works for Exodus International. He was astonished to see Roberson’s name on the Board of GSA Network.

“They would really have to not research who he was not to know, because it was pretty widely known. It wasn’t like a secret part of his life. Everybody knew that he took those kinds of photographs.”

Hate has a pretty bad name in the world today. No one wants to be called a hater, especially Christians, which is probably why we get accused of it all the time by our opponents. Homosexuals are especially fond of calling people haters. They even invented the word homophobia, which means hate and fear of homosexuals, envisaged as a mental illness (a phobia is an anxiety disorder).

I hate being called a homophobe. It has such an ugly connotation. Its especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I’m supposed to have a reputation for loving people, not hating them. So I’ve worked really hard over the years to try to get the homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe. I’ve pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior (loving the sinner but hating the sin). They hated that. Then I tried “walking my talk” by taking an ex-”gay” man who was dying of AIDS into my family. My wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of his life. They hated that even more.

Then I began asking for guidance from homosexuals themselves: “Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?” I asked. “What if I just agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex outside of marriage?” “No, that‘s homophobic,” they replied. “Suppose I talk only about the proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from hurting themselves?“ “No, you can’t do that,” they said. “How about if I say that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose?” “Ridiculous” they answered. “Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional marriage?” “That’s really hateful,” they replied.

After a while, I realized that the only way I could get them to stop calling me a homophobe was to start agreeing with them about everything. But here’s my dilemma: I honestly believe the Bible which says that homosexuality is wrong and harmful and that all sex belongs within marriage. I’ve also read the professional studies and know that “gay” sex hurts people because it goes against the design of their bodies. And I’m friends with a number of former homosexuals who are now married and living heterosexual lives. Do I have to give up my religion? Ignore scientific facts? Betray my friends? Is that the only way to avoid being called a hater and a homophobe?

RIVERSIDE,California - Complaints about religious content have led to a ban on flag-folding recitations by Veterans Administration employees and volunteers at all 125 national cemeteries. It all started because of one complaint about the ceremony at Riverside National Cemetery in California.

During thousands of military burials, the volunteers have folded the American flag 13 times and recited the significance of every fold to survivors. For example, the 12th fold glorifies "God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost."

The complaint revolved around the narration in the 11th fold, which celebrates Jewish war veterans and "glorifies the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob."

The National Cemetery Administration decided to ban the entire recital at all national cemeteries. Details of the complaint weren't disclosed.

Administration spokesman Mike Nacincik said the new policy outlined in a Sept. 27 memorandum is aimed at creating uniform services throughout the military graveyard system. He said the 13-fold recital is not part of the U.S. Flag Code and is not government-approved.

...Charlie Waters, parliamentarian for the American Legion of California, said he's advising memorial honor details to ignore the edict. "This is nuts," Waters told the Riverside Press-Enterprise by telephone from Fresno. "There are 26 million veterans in this country, and they're not going to take us all to prison."

Mr. Waters is right. We should follow the example of Daniel and simply continue doing what we have always done, trusting the consequences to God...

Thursday, October 25, 2007

From "Fully Aware" by Susan E. Willis, posted 10/28/07 at National Catholic Register

October has been designated Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and greater awareness is certainly needed.

As Dr. Chris Kahlenborn notes: “Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in women worldwide and the most common cause of cancer death in U.S. women aged 20 to 59 years. Each year in the United States, approximately 211,000 women develop breast cancer and more than 47,000 (20%) do so before the age of 50 years. Approximately two in 15 American women are expected to develop breast cancer in their lifetime, and nearly 40,000 [U.S.] women die of the disease annually.”

Unfortunately, for some groups, when it comes to breast cancer, it is “Selective Awareness” month.

The National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health) and some groups with an interest in “reproductive rights” or breast cancer research are keeping women in the dark about two risk factors for breast cancer: induced abortion and hormonal contraception.

The chief reason women are not being informed of these risks is not a lack of evidence. It is an epidemic of political correctness.

The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation continue to deny the link between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. They make no effort to publicize (or they wholly ignore) the increased risk of breast cancer associated with oral contraceptive use.

“Thou shalt bear false witness concerning the risks of abortion and contraception” has become an article of faith for some cultural elites.

The Komen Foundation affiliates (organizers of the “Race for the Cure” cash cow) go the extra 5K: It brings in about $200 million a year, expending three-quarters of that on breast cancer research grants, education, screening and treatment.

Yet, while ostensibly striving to eradicate breast cancer, Komen affiliates give about a half million dollars each year to Planned Parenthood.

Doctors said he had only a small chance of recovery. His own wife pulled his feeding tube after a week. But Friday, Jesse Ramirez walked out of the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, alive and recovering.

It has been an amazing five months for the US postal employee and father of three who was literally at death's door when he was critically injured in a horrific accident. Jesse and his wife Rebecca were in their SUV when Jesse lost control and crashed into a Chandler pottery store. Rebecca suffered only minor injuries, but Jesse was airlifted to a hospital with a fractured skull and face, punctured lungs and broken ribs. One week after the accident, and following a couple of surgeries, Rebecca Ramirez pulled Jesse out of the hospital and moved him to a Mesa hospice. Rebecca then made the decision to pull his feeding tube and Jesse went six days without food or water.

...But one day after our story aired, the family called to tell us Mesa hospice officials put Jesse's tube back in and the courts were now involved. A judge later ruled that the tube must stay in, until they work through the legal issues of the case. While those things transpired, family members reported that Jesse was now opening his eyes, and making hand gestures. Clearly no longer in a vegetative state, he was communicating with family. In court, it became official when a court appointed guardian announced that Jesse was indeed alert and awake. He was then transferred to a rehab center to begin the long road to recovery.

A pro-family activist devoted to countering the homosexual agenda says the United States has clearly reached the depths of depravity when a major U.S. city can decide to financially punish the Boy Scouts of America because they refuse to allow homosexuals into their group.

The Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which serves about 64,000 scouts in Philadelphia and its suburbs, has been paying $1 a year rent for its downtown office. But recently the city decided that the Scouts must pay the fair market rent of $200,000 a year to remain in that city-owned location because the group "discriminates" against homosexuals.

Please take the time to contact the mayor to express your disgust at the treatment of this fine organization for young men.John F. Street, MayorCity of PhiladelphiaRoom 215 City HallPhiladelphia, PA 19107215-686-2181

STOCKHOLM, Sweden, October 23, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The government of Sweden has announced it will be banning any religious activities in schools except for those directly related to religion classes. It is also directing that in religious education, religious ideas must not be taught as though they are objectively true. A columnist in the UK’s far-left Guardian newspaper has urged Britain to follow suit, implying that Britain’s Catholic and Jewish schools are a terror threat.

Swedish Education Minister Jan Bjoerklund told reporters that religious activity “can take place ... but only outside of coursework”. He said that teaching should “not be influenced” by religious beliefs.

The move by the government is being defended as a reaction to the rise of violent Islamic extremism that police have identified with many Muslim schools in Britain and Europe. As such the move is supported by the Swedish Christian Democratic party.

“Pupils must be protected from every sort of fundamentalism,” said Björklund.

Björklund used the example of the origins of human life, which, he said, must be taught from a “scientific” point of view, not a religious one.

“This is naturally brought about by the fact that different viewpoints are being discussed, for instance about the creation of the world - one based on science and one on religious views,” Björklund told a news conference.

As if evolution is based on science...

Björklund told reporters that the Intelligent Design theory would be banned from Swedish biology classes even as a proposed theory. The rules will make it illegal even for faith-based schools to teach that religious doctrines are objectively true on the grounds that this would be “prosetylising”. Prayer, including religious services or assemblies, will remain legal, as long as no teacher in a classroom teaches that there is any reality behind it.

“Teaching in school must have a scientific basis,” he said at a news conference.

Included in the proposals was a pledge that rhe Swedish National Agency for Education will double the number of inspections for both private independent and state-run schools. Schools will also be required to report their funding sources. Schools that fail to adhere to the new standards could face fines or even government-enforced closures. 67 elementary schools and six high schools have a religious confessional orientation in Sweden. The new rules will require Parliamentary approval and are set to come into effect in 2009.

Commenting in the far left Guardian newspaper, British columnist Andrew Brown said the British government should follow suit and force Britain’s Jewish, Muslim and Catholic independent schools to treat religion as though it were not true under the guise of addressing the threat of terrorism.

So here we have the government of a so-called free country outlawing Christianity in order to battle Islamo-facism. Ironically they do not realize that Christ is the answer to Islamo-facism.

(Ventura, CA) - Americans may be skeptical about the claims of politicians, but they remain confident that some of the most amazing stories in the Bible can be taken at face value. A new nationwide survey conducted by The Barna Group shows that six well-known Bible stories are accepted as literal truth by an average of two out of three adults.

How People Read the Stories

Survey respondents were asked if they thought a specific story in the Bible was “literally true, meaning it happened exactly as described in the Bible” or whether they thought the story was "meant to illustrate a principle but is not to be taken literally." Six renowned Bible stories were then offered to adults for their consideration.

Surprisingly, the most significant Bible story of all - "the story of Jesus Christ rising from the dead, after being crucified and buried" - was also the most widely embraced. Three out of four adults (75%) said they interpreted that narrative literally, while only one out of five (19%) said they did not take that story literally. The more highly educated respondents were, the less likely they were to take the story literally, although even two-thirds of college graduates (68%) believe the resurrection narrative is literally true. One of the most substantial differences of opinion occurred between mainline Protestants (83% of whom take the resurrection literally) and non-mainline Protestants (among whom 95% accept the resurrection as fact). Overall, 82% of Catholics embrace the resurrection narrative as being true. Black adults were much more likely than either whites (74%) or Hispanics (80%) to consider the resurrection to be true.

The account of the prophet Daniel surviving in the lion’s den was deemed to be literally true by two-thirds of adults (65%). There was a huge regional difference of perspective. About half of the residents of the Northeast (51%) and West (55%) adopted a literal view of the story, compared to about three-quarters of those living in the South (78%) and Midwest (71%). There was a huge gap between Protestants (81%) and Catholics (51%) taking a literal view of this event. The ethnic gap persisted, as well: 85% of blacks, 66% of whites and 56% of Hispanics adopted a literal view of Daniel’s experience.

Two out of three Americans (64%) believe that Moses literally parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape from the Egyptians. Regionally, almost four out of five southerners (78%) accept this story as literal truth, while less than three out of five adults from other regions hold the same view (59% in the Midwest and West, 57% in the Northeast). Similarly, four out of five Protestants (79%) and three out of five Catholics (60%) embrace a literal interpretation of the Red Sea story.

But Barna also noted a significant disconnect between faith and practice. "While the level of literal acceptance of these Bible stories is nothing short of astonishing given our cultural context, the widespread embrace of these accounts raises questions about the unmistakable gap between belief and behavior. On the one hand we have tens of millions of people who view these narratives as reflections of the reality, the authority and the involvement of God in our lives. On the other hand, a majority of those same people harbor a stubborn indifference toward God and His desire to have intimacy with them. In fact, a minority of the people who believe these stories to be true consistently apply the principles imbedded in these stories within their own lives. It seems that millions of Americans believe the Bible content is true, but are not willing to translate those stories into action. Sadly, for many people, the Bible has become a respected but impersonal religious history lesson that stays removed from their life."

It is interesting to note that polls about what Americans think about the war in Iraq are reported almost daily. Yet a Google News search on this poll turned up only two articles; one in Christianity Today and the other in The Christian Post. The above survey wascompletely absent in the mainstream media this week. The mainstream secular media has completely ignored it.Why? It doesn't fit with their view of the America.

Still not convinced? Consider this:

News articles on another study that indicates that the next generation sees Christians as mean-spirited, intolerant and bigoted seem to be everywhere...

Saturday, October 20, 2007

In case you haven't heard, J.K. Rowling who wrote the Harry Potter series just announced before a large audience of fans at Carnegie Hall that one of the most beloved characters in the book, Dumbledore, is homosexual. Now some, perhaps many of the children who love this character will feel ambivalent about regarding homosexuality as deeply sinful. Young children, adolescents, and even many adults fall victim to the specious syllogistic reasoning that goes something like:

The "gay" manifesto After the Ball written in 1989 describes a number of strategies to be used to transform cultural views of homosexuality, one of which is "conversion" (how very darkly ironic). The authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen write that "In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot's good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label 'gay,' either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype." Whether Rowling is aware of this process or not, she is employing it.

This is one of the most significant problems with repeated exposure to positive portrayals of homosexuals in films, television show, plays, novels, textbooks, and speakers. Unsophisticated thinkers come to believe that somehow good behaviors or traits are inherently exculpatory in regard to others. But we should no more say that the sin of homosexuality is effaced by a homosexual's compassion, generosity, or good humor than we would say that a polygamist's sin is effaced my his compassion, generosity, or good humor.

The movement is afoot to include positive portrayals of homosexuals and the transgendered in all textbooks from kindergarten on up. I have no objections to textbooks including the important invention or discovery of a homosexual or transgender person so long as their homosexuality or transgenderism is not mentioned. To mention it suggests that somehow their deviant sexual impulses are connected or relevant to their discovery, invention, or contribution to learning. And supporters of subversive sexuality know this. They know that associating the deviant sexual orientation or identity with something positive will irrationally transform society's perception of the deviant sexuality. Concerned citizens must strenuously oppose the identification of the sexual orientation or sexual identity of figures discussed in textbooks.

Another problematic way by which cultural values are being transformed is through the exposure to the stories of suffering shared by homosexuals and those who experience the psychological disorder of transgenderism. It is not uncommon in public high schools for LGBTQ students to share their stories of suffering with their peers. The result is that children, teens, and even adults who, of course, do not want to increase the suffering of others, retreat from making moral judgments. In so doing, they fail to make the critical distinction between suffering that results from harassment or abuse, and discomfort that results from an encounter with reasonable judgments about morality.

Parents and concerned taxpayers must be aware of and oppose these kinds of manipulative strategems.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The politically correct mantra about HIV/AIDS is that “anybody can get it.” This half-truth is as bizarre as pointing to the tragic death of professional naturalist Steve Irwin, best known as “The Crocodile Hunter,” and saying “anyone can die from the barb of a stingray.”

From "Anybody Can Get It?" by Janice Shaw Crouse, posted 10/17/07 at Concerned Women for America

...There is an obvious missing piece in both instances. You’re not going to die from a stingray’s barb unless you dive in waters that are home to stingrays. Likewise, unless you (1) Have intimate sexual contact with someone who is infected with the HIV/AIDS virus, (2) Share contaminated needles to do drugs, or (3) Are a healthcare worker who comes in direct contact with the body fluids of an infected person (or as in the heartrending case of Kimberly Bergalis, who contracted AIDS from her infected dentist), you will not, I repeat, you will NOT contract HIV/AIDS.

Another phony slogan foisted off on the public is that women are the “new face of HIV/AIDS.” These myths are among the pernicious efforts to disperse the stigma associated with a disease that is almost exclusively a homosexual male and drug addict epidemic. Insidious myths like these leave today’s young people misinformed, misled and, thus, unprotected.

In fact, Unprotected is the title of an important book that every parent of teenage children needs to read. It exposes the political correctness that leaves college students especially vulnerable to a whole range of health and emotional problems. The author, Miriam Grossman, M.D., is a psychiatrist who has worked for two decades with college students and served during the past decade at the student health center at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Others have commented on various aspects of Dr. Grossman’s exposé of the biases that harm students at university student health centers. I was especially appalled that basic medical knowledge about the transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus is kept from students. In spite of the fact that we are now well past the quarter century mark in the AIDS epidemic, and in spite of the fact that 1 in every 500 college students may be HIV positive, basic HIV/AIDS information is not known by the general public; our students in particular, the very ones most in need of truth to reinforce self-discipline, are not fully informed about the facts.

We treat HIV/AIDS differently from any other public health threat. While doctors are required by law to report nearly 50 communicable diseases (including tuberculosis, measles, syphilis, meningitis), and people with those communicable diseases are ordered by law to get treatment or go to jail, United States laws prohibit disclosure of anyone’s HIV status. Even the HIV tests use a code name to avoid identifying any infected persons. Thus, the only way anyone knows that a person has the virus is if that information is voluntarily given.

Yet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in the United States there are 40,000 new HIV cases per year and about 900,000 people living with the disease, with nearly 250,000 of those people unaware that they are infected. In response, the CDC recommends that the public be non-judgmental and they identify racism, discrimination, stigma and homophobia as reasons for the spread of the epidemic! As Dr. Grossman points out, instead of the public health programs which successfully controlled cholera, polio and syphilis, we fight the AIDS epidemic, a disease that has already claimed a half million victims in the U.S., with programs about cultural sensitivity. Such is the power of homosexual activists who waged a “privacy” campaign and, as noted by Dr. Grossman, won special status for HIV/AIDS among infectious diseases: voluntary and anonymous testing and no partner notification.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”

...The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.

Mr Justice Burton added: “The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.

World Congress of Families Global Coordinator Allan Carlson says a measure just signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is "a blatant attack on the natural family orchestrated by the alternative-lifestyles lobby."

SB777 prohibits any "instruction" (including textbooks) or school-sponsored "activity" perceived to "promote a discriminatory bias" against "gender." Under the law, "gender" includes cross-dressing and sex-change operations, as well as so-called sexual-orientation.

Carlson charges, "It will prohibit anything that suggests that the natural family -- a man and a woman, married, with children -- is normal or typical."

"Thus, under this latest advance toward a Brave New World of polymorphous perversion, California textbooks will no longer be able to use words like 'mother and father' and 'husband and wife,' because they suggest that heterosexuality is the norm – even though that is manifestly the case, even in California," Carlson commented.

World Congress of Families Global Coordinator Allan Carlson says a measure just signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is "a blatant attack on the natural family orchestrated by the alternative-lifestyles lobby."

SB777 prohibits any "instruction" (including textbooks) or school-sponsored "activity" perceived to "promote a discriminatory bias" against "gender." Under the law, "gender" includes cross-dressing and sex-change operations, as well as so-called sexual-orientation.

All the disastrous practical implications of this legislation have yet to be revealed. Some are reporting that CA public schools will have to deliberately teach positive messages about cross-dressing and homosexual behavior to students as young as kindergarten. This is something a Christian teacher CANNOT do. Time and further information will tell.

One thing is for sure. The definition of 'gender' contained in this law is utterly insane...

210.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's genderidentity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or notstereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

Apparently it is now ‘stereotypical’ to assume that a baby born with a penis is actually a boy...

OSLO, Norway, October 17, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Oslo pre-school teacher, backed by child psychologists, has suggested that kindergarten children be encouraged to “express” their sexuality through “sex-play” and games, including dancing naked and masturbating, in pre-school and day-care centres.

The English language edition of Norway’s Aftenposten newspaper reports that Pia Friis, the respected operator of an Oslo kindergarten, told an interviewer that children should be able “to look at each other and examine each other's bodies. They can play doctor, play mother and father, dance naked and masturbate”.

“But their sexuality must also be socialized, so they are not, for example, allowed to masturbate while sitting and eating. Nor can they be allowed to pressure other children into doing things they don't want to,” Friis said. (By all means, sex for pre-schoolers is fantastic, as long as it's consensual.)

Friis also faulted some staff of day-care centres and kindergartens who, she said, might react negatively to children expressing their sexuality. “When the personnel are uncertain, that passes on to the children, and it can be negative.”

Friis also faulted some staff of day-care centres and kindergartens who, she said, might react negatively to children expressing their sexuality. “When the personnel are uncertain, that passes on to the children, and it can be negative.”

Friis’ opinion was backed up by Norwegian child psychologist Thore Langfeldt, who said, “Children must learn about sexuality, otherwise things can go very wrong.”

ST. LOUIS, Illinois, October 17, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The rights of pharmacists and other health care professionals to refuse to dispense abortifacient drugs have taken a step forward, according to a statement from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). A long running dispute between the state of Illinois, pharmacy owners such as Walgreens and Walmart stores and several pharmacists who refused to dispense abortifacient drugs has resulted in an agreement that pharmacists must be allowed to opt out.

In 2005, Walgreens pharmacist Rich Quayle was suspended from his job and said he would look for other work rather than agree to dispense the morning after pill in accord with a recently passed law. In April 2005, Governor Rod Blagojevich said that the “right of conscience does not apply to pharmacists” and issued an edict attempting to force all pharmacists in the state to distribute the drugs.

Unfortunately this won't help pharmacy owners who do not wish to stock abortifacient drugs. A Morrison pharmacy owner is hoping the Illinois Supreme Court will protect his right of conscience.

Bobby Schindler has noted that whenever a supposedly vegetative patient, who doctors were sure would never react consciously again, suddenly regains understanding or "miraculously" awakens the reporters seem never to make the connection to his sister Terri Schiavo...

...It is as if these reports, to quote Shakespeare, "doth protest too much," as if there is a subliminal realization that a terrible injustice was done to her.

The latest almost unbelievable example is in an otherwise interesting and important (and long) piece in the New Yorker, byline Jerome Groopman. After describing how supposedly unconscious people have been misdiagnosed, the author quotes an unnamed neuroscientist about Terri. From the story:

A neuroscientist showed me a video on the Internet of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman who spent fifteen years in what most doctors agree was a vegetative state--tests revealed almost no activity in her cortex--and whose death, in 2005, provoked fierce debate over the rights of severely brain-damaged patients. (Schiavo died after the Supreme Court rejected her parents' appeal of a judge's decision approving her husband's request that her feeding tube be removed. An autopsy showed extensive brain damage.) In the video, a man's voice can be heard praising Schiavo for opening her eyes in response to his instructions, and the neuroscientist told me that he was impressed until he muted the sound. "With the sound off, it is clear that her movements are random," the neuroscientist said. "But, with the voice-over, it is easy to make a misdiagnosis. (My emphasis.)

The above stills are from the video in question. It deeply touched my heart and it is seared forever in my memory. In that video, Terri is asked by the examiner to open her eyes. At first, nothing. Then, within ten or so seconds, her eyes flicker, she opens them, and then opens them so wide her forehead wrinkles. It is clearly an intentional response to the question.

But if you turn the sound off, there is no question to hear--and voila, her opening her eyes with clear intention can now be dismissed as merely "random movement." But a random movement under those circumstances would be to move her head from side to side or lick or lips. But when she opened her eyes, and so intently, precisely as requested, you have to work hard to make it "random." So, to make sure we don't see the terrible wrong that was done to her, we just turn off the sound.

Libraries and schools throughout the country are ready once again to observe Banned Books Week. It's that special time each year when some in the library profession point an accusing finger at parents, especially Christians or conservatives who might dare to question the value or appropriateness of certain materials available to youth. For 25 years since its inception, Banned Books Week has been warning America: "Beware of the ignorance and repression of censors! They will deprive us all of valuable knowledge and freedom."

Setting aside any danger that the government might ban valuable materials, which is not happening in any community in America, let's strip away the spin and look at the facts. The supposed dangers are essentially phony. For there are several methods to "ban" a book from a school or library: someone can ask that something already in the library be removed, or, valuable books can be banned from consideration before they ever reach the shelves. This is the dirty little secret behind the bluster and outrage of Banned Books Week: private, library-initiated censorship is a routine practice throughout America.

Library selection committees are systematically purging libraries of any conservative or serious Christian viewpoints and instead, loading the shelves with left-wing propaganda and pornography. This year, the American Library Association is making a special to-do about the "dangers" of objections to "gay-themed books" especially those for youth. While it's doubtful this is an issue that keeps most Americans awake at night, it's important to recognize that as controversial social issues go, there is hardly a more hot-button topic, and one would think that all these "free-speech" advocates and defenders of philosophical liberties would be worried about any suppression of viewpoints on this high -profile subject. Don't the vigilant watchdogs of tolerance seek to protect a "diversity" of thought?

Well, the microcosm of my local library in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio, reflects what many are reporting from around the nation: Conservative materials on the issue of homosexuality are disappearing from the collection, or more often, never appearing in the first place. In researching the catalog of the Upper Arlington Public Library, I searched under titles, authors and subjects for books providing a responsible defense of traditional marriage and warning about the risks of homosexual behavior.

...And time doesn't even permit me to cover all the many offerings detailing homosexual, bisexual and group sex, nor the selections arguing for more tolerance and understanding of adults having sex with children – "intergenerational intimacy" is the new name for pedophilia.

In the section of the library aimed toward adults, I stopped counting at 100 pro-homosexual books..

The legislation - similar to laws already in force outlawing persecution on religious or racial grounds - will make criminals of those who express their views in ways that could lead to the bullying or harassment of gays.

The maximum sentence is longer than the average of around five years handed to rapists.

The announcement widened the rift between opposing supporters of freedom of speech and gay rights.

Christian groups condemned it as "a law to allow Christiansto be locked up for what they believe".

But the gay pressure group Stonewall said those who disapprove of homosexuals would have nothing to fear from the law if they express their views in a manner that is "temperate" and "polite".

Justice Secretary Jack Straw told MPs the gay harassment law will be included as an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill currently going before Parliament, though ministers have yet to decide the wording.

Mr Straw said: "It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the last ten years that we are now appalled by hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality.

"It is time for the law to recognise this."

He raised the prospect of extending the law to cover to "transgendered" people and the disabled.

The new law aims to catch those who do not explicitly call for attacks or discrimination against homosexuals, as this is covered by existing incitement laws.

Instead, police will be allowed to pursue those who create an "atmosphere or climate" in which hatred or bullying can be fostered. Officials said it would not prohibit criticism of gay, lesbian and bisexual people or joke-telling.

The final decision over who has "crossed the line" will rest with the police.

If it wasn't clear before, the writing is on the wall now. Religious freedom is being destroyed and persecution is coming. The Church in the Western World is about to get sifted.

It might not hurt to send a copy of this article to senators Durbin and Obama and ask them if this is what they eventually have in mind for America since they support ENDA and Hate crimes legislation. While your at it, check out where your representative stands on this legislation too. Click here to contact your legislators.

From "Is Creationism a Threat to Human Rights?" by Albert Mohler, posted 10/08/07 at albertmohler.com

As if the world needed another crazy development, the Council of Europe, the continent's central human rights body, last week declared creationism to be a threat to human rights. The group's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution stating that creationism is promoted by "forms of religious extremism."

The Council, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, oversees human rights standards in member states and enforces decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

The resolution, which passed 48 votes to 25 with 3 abstentions, is not binding on the Council's 47 member states but reflects widespread opposition among politicians to teaching creationism in science class.

The text of the resolution leaves no doubt about the Council of Europe's judgment. "For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life," the text acknowledges. "Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe."

...The Council of Europe's resolution is clear evidence of the fact that a secularized society desperately needs naturalistic evolution as the metaphysical foundation of its worldview. Any threat to evolution is seen as a threat to democracy and human rights -- and democracy and human rights are understood in an entirely secular framework as well.

This resolution is so extreme that, at first glance, it appears to be a farce or parody. Sadly, it is not. This is no joke. This is the shape of a secularized future.

It's hard to imagine how intelligent people can get this confused. There is no basis for human rights if governments do not recognize the existence of the God of the Bible who has given them rules regarding the treatment of human beings for which they will be held accountable. Without recognition of Him human rights will degenerate to whatever is convenient for the people in power...

Oxford zoologist, Richard Dawkins, has made a lot of money and fame calling people who believe in God "delusional." Yet he is now grumbling that the producers of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed "tricked" him into doing an interview. EXPELLED exposes the intimidation, persecution and career destruction that takes place when any scientist dares dissent from the view that all life on earth is the mere result of random mutation and natural selection.

"Some of these people -- especially Mr. Dawkins -- spend a lot of time insulting the millions of folks who disagree with them, so you would think they would have a little tougher skin," said Mark Mathis, one of the film's producers. "The funny thing is they are whining about the fact that the film is going to allow them to insult people on a much larger stage."

Other notable scientists who claim they were "deceived" by the producers of EXPELLED include Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education and PZ Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who devotes much of his time to his popular science blog.

Myers has attacked the film several times on his blog since EXPELLED announced its arrival in theatres in February 2008.

Graphic photographs of nearly nude homosexuals strutting the streets of San Francisco under the sponsorship banner of Miller Brewing Co. are being made available to tens of thousands of Catholics in Milwaukee, the beer company's hometown.

It broke into the headlines this year with its promotional image mocking the Last Supper scene of Jesus Christ and his disciples, replacing the biblical leaders with leather-adorned men and the bread and wine with sex toys.

The Catholic League had called a boycott of the Miller Brewing Co. after the beer giant failed to have its logo removed from the event.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue has said he'd like Miller to rescind its sponsorship completely.

But officials say the brewer has declined, and so this distribution of photographs will allow leaders, residents and workers in the company's hometown see the results of the company's sponsorship.

The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (CCC), a national association of 600 priests and deacons dedicated to following the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, have publicly endorsed the rationale of St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke to deny Holy Communion to politicians who obstinately and openly support abortion or euthanasia. "We respectfully urge all his brother bishops to universally and decisively support this initiative at the upcoming General Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in November," said the group in a release.

"The Code of Canon Law (#915) explicitly states that those 'who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,' said the release. The confraternity explained, "Giving consent to an evil act is de facto formal cooperation in evil. Equally culpable are persons who are 'personally opposed to abortion' yet provide necessary assistance for the evil to occur. This is clearly understood as material cooperation in evil."

Rebutting excuses which have been made to refuse to deny communion to pro-abortion politicians, the CCC says: "It is specious to say that denying Holy Communion causes scandal to the faithful. Recall the parable in Matthew 22 where the man is physically removed from the banquet for not wearing a wedding garment. Some might consider it unfair treatment yet the gospel shows there is no excuse. The man was 'speechless' and Catholic politicians have no excuse, either. If they openly support abortion and/or euthanasia, even if 'personally opposed', they are in fact publicly unworthy to receive Holy Communion due to their cooperation in evil."

The CCC concludes, "Greater scandal is given when bishops, priests, and deacons do not protect the sanctity and dignity of the Most Blessed Sacrament by allowing public persons notoriously known for their positions which directly violate the Divine and Moral Laws."

As of the beginning of the 2008 school year, all students in the province of Quebec whether in public school, private school or even homeschooled will be mandated to take a program on "Ethics and Religious Culture" which runs from grade one till the end of high school. The program is completely relativistic and includes positive presentation of homosexual families and requires children to question their own religious upbringing.

Several parent groups have joined forces to protest the mandatory nature of the program demanding an opt out for parents who do not wish to have their children in the courses.

A peaceful march and rally before the National Assembly building in Quebec City is being planned for October 20, 2007, from 01:00 P.M. to 04:00 P.M., calling for freedom of religion and conscience in schools.

The Coalition pour la liberté en éducation (CLÉ) is inviting all concerned citizens to join in and insist that the Government respect the right of parents to choose the type of religious and moral education they want for their children in school.

According to official announcements, the current right to choose between moral/religious education from a Catholic or Protestant perspective on the one hand, or a course on ethics without religious content on the other hand, will be suppressed in favor of the new government program.

"As of 2008, parents would completely lose their right of choice," Jean Morse-Chevrier of the Association of Catholic Parents, a partner in CLÉ, told LifeSiteNews.com. "This would have a huge impact since 80% of parents of primary school students and almost 60% of parents of secondary school students have until now chosen moral education or a Catholic religious education for their children," she said.

Policemen instructed not to interfere as people engage in oral sex, masturbation, and sado-masochism in the streets of Democratic Party Chairman Nancy Pelosi's district.

Peter LaBarbera and Allyson Smith of Americans for Truth traveled to San Franciso to chronicle the Folsom Street Fair last Sunday. What they saw happening in the streets of San Franciso in broad daylight, in full view of patrolling policemen and even children (see photo above) was beyond shocking...

Peter has received some criticism from fellow Christians for displaying the photos on his website -- but if people should not see them, then surely these activities should not take place. Years ago, a woman wrote a letter to the Trib upset because her young children had seen a pro-life poster that showed an aborted fetus. She called the photos "shameful." A friend responded that the photos were repugnant: the procedure that makes them possible is shameful.

Similarly, the photos on AFT are repugnant, while the Folsom spectacle that made them possible is shameful. If we have greater outrage at the exposure of this public travesty than we do at the public travesty itself there is something seriously wrong with US.

The photos are disgusting and some should not view them (e.g. children, adolescents, men who struggle with same-sex attraction) Please do not view these photos if you should not. Most of us do not fall into the ‘should not’ category…

Photos can generate a righteous anger that mere verbal descriptions do not. And we desperately need such anger.

WASHINGTON, DC, September 26, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A change of policy at Georgetown University Law Center will permit the university - which is the oldest Catholic university in the nation - to give grants to students who lobby for abortion for agencies such as Planned Parenthood. The Hoya, the Georgetown University newspaper, reports on its front page today about the policy change.

The policy change was announced September 7 by Law Center Dean T. Alexander Aleinikoff in a letter published in the Law Center's student newspaper. The decision comes after the Law Center got flack from pro-abortion students and faculty for directing student group Equal Justice Foundation, which received university funds, to refuse funding to a student who applied for funding to intern at Planned Parenthood.

The Hoya reports that the university Law Center will no longer consider the mission of organizations in determining grants, as was the case for the initial denial of funding for the Planned Parenthood position. "In partnership with the Equal Justice Foundation, the Law Center will provide grants to all students who work on law-related issues at a public interest organization or government agency," wrote Aleinikoff.

Joy Welan, the president of the Catholic university's Law Center pro-abortion group - "Law Students for Choice" - rejoiced at the decision admitting that her group met with Aleinikoff several times over the policy. "We think that this compromise is fantastic news, for students who are interested in pursuing careers in reproductive rights advocacy," Welan told The Hoya. "The dean has taken a huge step forward in advancing Georgetown's commitment to public interest law, and we applaud him for it."

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published a study yesterday entitled, "The Breast Cancer Epidemic." It showed that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer," and fertility is also a useful predictor.

The study by Patrick Carroll of PAPRI in London showed that countries with higher abortion rates, such as England & Wales, could expect a substantial increase in breast cancer incidence. Where abortion rates are low (i.e., Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) a smaller increase is expected. Where a decline in abortion has taken place, (i.e., Denmark and Finland) a decline in breast cancer is anticipated.

Carroll used the same mathematical model for a previous forecast of numbers of breast cancers in future years for England & Wales based on cancer data up to 1997 that has proved quite accurate for predicting cancers observed in years 1998 to 2004.

In four countries - England & Wales, Scotland, Finland and Denmark - a social gradient has been discovered (unlike that for other cancers) whereby upper class and upwardly mobile women have more breast cancer than lower class women. This was studied in Finland and Denmark and the influence of known risk factors other than abortion was examined, but the gradient was not explained.

Carroll suggests that the known preference for abortion in this class might explain the phenomenon. Women pursuing higher educations and professional careers often delay marriage and childbearing. Abortions before the birth of a first child are highly carcinogenic.

Carroll used national data from nations believed to have "nearly complete abortion counts." Therefore, his study is not affected by recall bias.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer commented on the latest findings stating: "It's time for scientists to admit publicly what they already acknowledge privately among themselves - that abortion raises breast cancer risk - and to stop conducting flawed research to protect the medical establishment from massive medical practice lawsuits."

Protesters sang hymns, shed tears and displayed large photos of aborted fetuses Tuesday but did nothing to disrupt the first day of business at the new Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora.

About a dozen Aurora police officers were at the site on the city's east side in case problems developed between the roughly 100 abortion protesters and the nearly 50 employees and supporters of Planned Parenthood, who cheered loudly when Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area President and CEO Steve Trombley announced the clinic was open.

"We know that the services we provide will do more in one day to prevent abortions than our opposition will do in a lifetime of protesting," Trombley said.

The clinic, a massive, nearly windowless brick building at Oakhurst Drive and New York Street, will provide an array of reproductive health-care services, including contraception, examinations for breast and cervical cancers, and screenings for sexually transmitted diseases, Trombley said. Less than 10 percent of the services performed at Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area clinics are abortion-related, he said.

Trombley estimates the clinic will serve 25,000 patients a year when at full capacity. A few appointments were scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, mostly for tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and more patients would be seen this week, he said.

Abortion protesters vowed not to give up the fight to close the clinic, also showing up Tuesday night at the Aurora committee of the whole meeting, even though no clinic item was on the agenda. Outside the meeting, Eric Scheidler, spokesman for the Pro-Life Action League, said he filed an objection Tuesday with the Aurora Zoning Board of Appeals because the clinic did not get a special-use permit. He said he believed the objection should have triggered a closing of the clinic for 30 days.

The Supreme Court will not hear objections to a controversial New York law that forces religious organizations, including Baptist, Orthodox Jewish and Seventh-Day Adventist groups, to go against their beliefs and pay for employees' contraceptives.

Kiera McCaffrey with the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights said the court’s avoidance tactic is becoming somewhat of a pattern.

“They don’t want to address these cases," she told Family News in Focus. "They are important cases of religious liberty, and for the Supreme Court to shirk it is very troubling.”